in

Biden-Harris Campaign: A Lesson in Financial Mismanagement

In the course of the intensely high priced political race for presidency, the three main candidates along with their main supporting groups have collectively racked up an astounding $4.7 billion expenditure. These details, which unveil the enormous financial figures behind the campaign, have been brought to light through the final federal campaign-financial reports along with other associated filings.

This financial statement outlines the total amount raised from the period ranging from October 17th to November 25th. However, these figures have been integrated with previously obtained data from federal filings to paint a fuller, more comprehensive image of the financial undertakings of the general-election candidates.

Check out our Trump 2025 Calendars!

These grand totals, thus, encompass funds raised both directly and through joint fundraising committees and national parties, associated with the campaigns. As much as these figures reveal about the financial aspects, they offer no insight into Super PAC contributions.

The financial landscape of the presidential race was a dramatic spectacle. Democrats, with their associated Super PACs and other groups, managed to amass approximately $2.9 billion, which vastly overshadows the Republicans’ total sums of around $1.8 billion.

Donald Trump’s campaign, like in 2016, exhibited an ostensible thriftiness, attempting to bolster the impression that a lesser spender could overpower a wealthier competitor. However, the overall picture doesn’t fully endorse this narrative. The Super PACs that were on Trump’s side indeed managed to surpass the funds raised by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, thus demonstrating that Trump’s campaign was not as lean as it wanted to portray itself.

Starting as early as November 2022, an unusually forward start, the Trump campaign in partnership with the Republican National Committee, accumulated about $1.2 billion leading up to Election Day, according to the analysis by The New York Times. In addition, Trump’s primary Super PACs, namely MAGA Inc., Right for America, Turnout for America, America PAC, and Preserve America, were successful in raising an extra $849 million during that same duration.

The Biden-Harris campaign, on the other hand, had a different approach, which seemingly did not work out in their favor. They had a longer span to gather funds due to avoiding a competitive primary race, thus going head-to-head directly with Donald Trump.

Furthermore, an early joint fund-raising agreement was signed between Joe Biden and the Democratic National Committee, much earlier than Trump’s agreement with the Republican National Committee. This, ostensibly, offered an advantage, enabling them to accept more generous checks from donors.

Ironically, despite this apparent advantage and longer timeframe, the Democrats’ fundraising efforts seemed to gather momentum only after Kamala Harris entered the race in the summer. However, as the figures clearly indicate, their overall financial assurance could not compete with the Republicans’ strategic operations.

Oddly enough, despite having the opportunity to raise more and even exploit the situation to their advantage, the Biden-Harris campaign’s efforts to gather donations came off rather weakly compared to Trump’s campaign. Particularly, considering the negative publicity surrounding Trump’s presidency, it was surprising that the Biden-Harris campaign didn’t manage to attract more funds.

Highlighting Biden and Harris’s questionable financial strategies, the copious amounts of funds raised by the Republicans demonstrated their superior financial strategies. Despite public sentiment and media criticism of Trump’s campaign strategies, they were clearly successful in getting their message across and winning over influential donors.

It’s evident that, despite their alleged superior financial planning, Biden and Harris were not as successful at fundraising as they intended to be. The reported sum showcases the Democrats’ failure to secure significant funding, despite their early start and purported tactical advantage.

This serves as yet another reminder that the strategic acumen of the Biden-Harris campaign left much to be desired. Their fundraising efforts, like many other aspects of their campaign, consistently fell short of the mark.

Contrastingly, the Trump campaign, despite its outwardly conservative spending, continued to outshine the Democrats when it came to fundraising and securing the support of influential donors. Interestingly, while Trump’s campaign adopted a more prudent approach, it was the Democrats, with their lavish spending, who struggled to keep up financially.

In conclusion, the financial analysis of the campaign suggests a clear pattern of mismanagement and short-sightedness on the part of the Democrats. Biden and Harris’s inability to harness their early start and large donor capabilities exemplifies a lack of strategic planning and effective execution.

This stark contrast between the fundraising efforts of both parties paints the Biden-Harris campaign as ineffective in appealing to supporters and managing their resources efficiently, while revealing the Republicans’ shrewd and strategic approach in ensuring sufficient campaign funding.